If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hi Unregistered,
We'll be undergoing major forum changes in the very near future. Be sure to check out the details here

I do have a bad or naughty streak though ;P...as for what? Well, it'll never effect you. Anything bad I do effects me and me alone. Well, to best of my ablities at least. It seems to have worked, people still classify me as nice and respectful.

do you even know what the point of occupy was or are you just parroting the same privileged white retardation seen in the rest of this thread

The occupy movement was/is (are they still going?) a bunch of haters of capitalism who point the finger of our financial collapse on a mythical group known as the 1%. There's no deep-seated point to their cause and have achieved absolutely jack-**** of any importance. They are an embarrassment to the left.

tell me more about how the social-democratic policies they were in large part proposing were "anti-capitalist".

i mean, aside from the one that would've actually arrested capitalists on wall street due to the sheer scale of junk commodity trading they were committed to throughout the 1999-2007 period.

a mythical group known as the 1%

"the 1%" is significantly easier to market than "the hundredth of 1%" for the purposes of bringing attention to inequality. on top of that, the top 1% has seen near-exponential income gains since 1980 versus literal stagnation for everyone else.

and i don't think i need to mention what percentile of income/wealth distribution the people actually responsible for the current recession are in.

this isn't a mythical group they just randomly came up with, no matter how much you try to apologize for dumb policy.

They are an embarrassment to the left

no, the rest of the "left" is an embarrassment to political activism. when the deck's already stacked against you, you don't frame policy by staging meaningless rallies like, uh, everyone other than occupy.

tell me more about how the social-democratic policies they were in large part proposing were "anti-capitalist".

Elimination of student loans, anti-corporationism, increased minimum wage (in many cases) to untenable levels, higher income tax levels for the mythical 1%. Those kind of things, often embodied by their violent protests.

Seeing the "capitalism is crisis" (note, not capitalism is IN crisis) sign at St. Paul's made me sick. Any round canvas of occupy "protesters" revealed a stream of anti-capitalist views. Even left-wing press referred to their stand as anti-capitalist.

i mean, aside from the one that would've actually arrested capitalists on wall street due to the sheer scale of junk commodity trading they were committed to throughout the 1999-2007 period.

Don't quite get what you're saying here.

"the 1%" is significantly easier to market than "the hundredth of 1%" for the purposes of bringing attention to inequality. on top of that, the top 1% has seen near-exponential income gains since 1980 versus literal stagnation for everyone else.

So it is a myth then. It's a disingenuous term purposefully set up to misdirect. It specifically highlights and criticises people simply for being wealthy (on the basis that if you're in the 1% you're part of the problem. It's tied directly to wealth).

and i don't think i need to mention what percentile of income/wealth distribution the people actually responsible for the current recession are in.

Are politicians in the 1%? Are the members of the general public who spent what they didn't have and took on mortgages they probably couldn't pay? Cos they're in there too. Laying the sole blame for the economic crisis at the hands of the bankers (who make up I think c.15% of the "1%", making them the 0.15%) is an exercise in hypocrisy

this isn't a mythical group they just randomly came up with, no matter how much you try to apologize for dumb policy.

Except it really is. The 1% pay masses of income tax. The 1% help fund hundreds of public sector bodies. Many of the 1% (indeed, probably the majority) lead productive and healthy lives whereby they seek to help and assist others.

no, the rest of the "left" is an embarrassment to political activism. when the deck's already stacked against you, you don't frame policy by staging meaningless rallies like, uh, everyone other than occupy.

Occupy are an embarrassment to political activism. A disparate (often violent) group with no real collective agenda shooting at random targets in the hope they might connect, whilst at the same time asking for more and more government to "help" us.

Anyway, feel free to take this to V/PM cos I can't really be bothered filling the thread.

Not all wealthy people are greedy or corrupt, but this is what I don't like: those who use their money for political gain and control. The ones who buy our democracy.

Now, before I get into that, I want to say that there are a few rich people that I admire, one of which being Warren Buffet. This man is the third wealthiest man in the country, yet he pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to charity, most notably the Gates Foundation. (Source) I know that there are plenty more rich people out there, and it gives me hope that there will be more of these people in the future.

The rich people I don't like, as I mentioned earlier, are people that mess with our political system, most notably the Koch Brothers. Now, there are two different sides to this story, very heated sides, but I know these guys are corrupt. They spend millions on think tanks designed to make things go their way in terms of oil production and candidate elections. They founded the creation of Super Pacs, allowing big name corporations to funnel money to their candidates, creating those annoying ad floods we say every election cycle. Now, others donate money as well in the past, but Citizens United has taken it too far. The Koch brothers are probably not the only factors in this bills conception, but they are definitely a large part.

Now, its tough to find actual non-biased info on these guys, so I'll give you two different ones and let you decide for yourself:

(May the court note that at no point in this thread have I actually expressed dislike for wealthy people, but instead for the practices that have allowed them to receive nearly all of the gains from economic growth while every other wage-earner, including just about the entire middle class, has to make do with the tiny remaining scraps.)

Interesting that none of these things are actually anti-capitalist; they're all anti-corporatist. All of these proposals are simply redistributive measures within the system, they aren't total upheavals.

Those kind of things, often embodied by their violent protests.

Those "violent protests" that comprised a handful of actions across dozens of cities in the past 15 months.

Don't quite get what you're saying here.

You never heard anything about proposals to jail bank CEOs and/or break up the TBTF banks?

It specifically highlights and criticises people simply for being wealthy (on the basis that if you're in the 1% you're part of the problem. It's tied directly to wealth).

It specifically highlights the people who've disproportionately benefited from economic growth for 30 years above and beyond what other macroeconomic factors would explain? Well damn, they're extremists on the scale of the Communists of old!

Are politicians in the 1%? Are the members of the general public who spent what they didn't have and took on mortgages they probably couldn't pay? Cos they're in there too. Laying the sole blame for the economic crisis at the hands of the bankers (who make up I think c.15% of the "1%", making them the 0.15%) is an exercise in hypocrisy

Politicians who were given generous campaign contributions by those same bankers to put favourable policy into place and then socialize their losses are in the 1%, yes.

And the bolded is rather disingenuous unless you pretend that every member of the general public had the necessary tools to be able to know if they were getting screwed on their mortgages, and that the investment banking practices that specifically caused the crisis were not enabled by banker-lobbied laws such as CFMA-00.

The 1% pay masses of income tax. The 1% help fund hundreds of public sector bodies. Many of the 1% (indeed, probably the majority) lead productive and healthy lives whereby they seek to help and assist others.

In the former case, given current levels of income inequality being at their worst point since 1927, it clearly isn't enough; in the latter case, it's kind of disingenuous to say this while ignoring the fact that many of them just voted for someone committed to defunding most of those same public-sector bodies.

Occupy are an embarrassment to political activism. A disparate (often violent) group with no real collective agenda shooting at random targets in the hope they might connect, whilst at the same time asking for more and more government to "help" us.

Please tell me how many US labour rights victories were won by groups who were not, at some point in the struggle for that victory, disparate and/or violent. (Hint: almost none of them.)

Please also tell me how they don't have a "real collective agenda" when you just named four supposed "real collective" policy goals.

Please also tell me why this nebulous "more and more government" is a problem, specifically, without referring to government debt.

Originally Posted by Zenotwapal

I assume you don't support people who work hard to earn a respectable amount of cash?

I assume you aren't actually going to be intellectually honest at any point in this thread, so I'll only say this:

There's hard-working people, and then there's people gaining a disproportionate return relative to the amount of productivity they're actually responsible for, and most of these income and wealth gains over the last 30 years are concentrated among the latter group of people.

(May the court note that at no point in this thread have I actually expressed dislike for wealthy people, but instead for the practices that have allowed them to receive nearly all of the gains from economic growth while every other wage-earner, including just about the entire middle class, has to make do with the tiny remaining scraps.)

Interesting that none of these things are actually anti-capitalist; they're all anti-corporatist. All of these proposals are simply redistributive measures within the system, they aren't total upheavals.

Those "violent protests" that comprised a handful of actions across dozens of cities in the past 15 months.

You never heard anything about proposals to jail bank CEOs and/or break up the TBTF banks?

It specifically highlights the people who've disproportionately benefited from economic growth for 30 years above and beyond what other macroeconomic factors would explain? Well damn, they're extremists on the scale of the Communists of old!

Politicians who were given generous campaign contributions by those same bankers to put favourable policy into place and then socialize their losses are in the 1%, yes.

And the bolded is rather disingenuous unless you pretend that every member of the general public had the necessary tools to be able to know if they were getting screwed on their mortgages, and that the investment banking practices that specifically caused the crisis were not enabled by banker-lobbied laws such as CFMA-00.

In the former case, given current levels of income inequality being at their worst point since 1927, it clearly isn't enough; in the latter case, it's kind of disingenuous to say this while ignoring the fact that many of them just voted for someone committed to defunding most of those same public-sector bodies.

Please tell me how many US labour rights victories were won by groups who were not, at some point in the struggle for that victory, disparate and/or violent. (Hint: almost none of them.)

Please also tell me how they don't have a "real collective agenda" when you just named four supposed "real collective" policy goals.

Please also tell me why this nebulous "more and more government" is a problem, specifically, without referring to government debt.

I assume you aren't actually going to be intellectually honest at any point in this thread, so I'll only say this:

There's hard-working people, and then there's people gaining a disproportionate return relative to the amount of productivity they're actually responsible for, and most of these income and wealth gains over the last 30 years are concentrated among the latter group of people.

Seems fair
But what about people who reap in our tax dollars because of simple laziness? Are you going to sit there and watch your government throw your money at the unreasonably unemployed because they aren't willing to get a job that's below themselves? This is part of the reason why the United States looks retarded. I think we've all forgotten on how a democracy runs. Throwing money at everyone isn't going to solve much; it'll just make people lazy.

There's nothing wrong with self-made wealth, and not everyone from that background has a stuck up, condescending attitude.
Keep in mind that confidence and cockiness are two separate terms.
One can be both confident and humble.

Chances are, you were also born into a family that knows how to make money, so when born into wealth you're going to be raised as a child knowing how to make money.

Ah, would that it were that simple. Many children born into wealthy families don't know how to make money because they've never had to work a day in their lives. Their parents (or grandparents) did and they only reap the benefits. Most of them have gotten everything they've ever wanted because their parents can provide it for them. The college that I go to is sort of, well, it's the school wealthy parents send kids who aren't smart enough to get into an Ivy League. Now, I'm here because the writing program is very strong and that's my intended major. But I'm surrounded by plenty of wealthy kids who treat college like a four-year layover because no matter what they do, they don't have to worry about what happens after college. They'll just go work for Daddy's law firm, or inherit Mom's corporation not because of any achievement on their part, but because of their last name.

Basically, my point boils down to this: Every day, I see an abundance of wealth, but a dearth of class.

I come from a comfortably middle class family. With the financial aid I'm getting, my family and I can afford to put my sister and I through college, but we've had to make some sacrifices to do so. We've got enough money to be able to afford some rather nice things, but so much as to take them for granted. I thought, hearing about the school's demographic, that I would have to appear as cultured as possible to blend in. Not so. The wealthy here are boorish and act almost no better than animals, simply because they have no checks on their behavior. It doesn't matter what they do, because their parents can easily afford college tuition and they don't need to worry about a struggling job market.

I suppose my problem is not with the wealthy themselves, but rather with the sense of entitlement that comes with being wealthy. I'm sorry, but if you've never learned the value of a dollar, I find it difficult to have respect for you.

EDIT:

Elimination of student loans, anti-corporationism, increased minimum wage (in many cases) to untenable levels, higher income tax levels for the mythical 1%. Those kind of things, often embodied by their violent protests.

Tell me: do you have student loans that you have to pay off? Have you ever been paid minimum wage? Do you realize that a man who makes seven figures a month is taxed proportionately less from his total income than I was when I worked in a warehouse for $9 an hour?
Also, your perception of the Occupy movement is dreadfully misguided. The point was a non-violent, sit-in protest. They only became violent when police officers accosted them, and in almost every case, law enforcement officials "threw the first stone" as it were.

So, until you have worked in a minimum wage job and stared down your own student loan debt and realized you'll be paying it off for years and years, kindly show a little respect for those of us who do.

As for me,I am extremely jealous of the rich.
I don't like most of them who act like arrogant idiots. I have met many people from rich schools and rich families,out of all of them,about 60% acted very arrogant about their wealth and stuff.
The rest are OK as they don't like to brag about being rich and such,and are very humble about it.

3DS FC: 0473-9146-7312
Pokemon Black 2 FC:5201-0388-1066
Name:Mayaka
I am a really friendly person and I want to trade/battle with many people!

Current successful trades with people on serebii.net: 5
My shiny list(still not complete list as i have more,also i might be willing to trade these):

Most of the time, they've worked hard for it; it didn't just fall out of the sky one day for them. This is a very timely message, especially with all this "class warfare" nonsense that all those Occupy Wall Street people went crazy over. I grew up (and still am, somewhat) from very humble means, and my parents have always taught me to never be jealous of others' riches.

I must admit, especially when I was younger, there were times that I was jealous of people that were better off than I was. But I always caught myself and reminded myself that it's not my business to be jealous of them, and that I should be thankful for what I've been blessed with. As someone who's grown up from very humble means, I'll honestly admit, It's not always easy to suppress the jealous feelings, especially when you see many people doing financially well around you. But it's the right thing to do.

Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Unova Champion

† I am a Christian and proud of it! Copy and paste this if you are too.†

Let's go through some reasonable viewpoints on these things in no particular order:

1) Some people work hard (or are lucky) and accumulate their own wealth. Good on them. Awesome.

2) Some people attain their wealth entirely through family money and connections. Pretty iffy, but what're you gonna do? Plenty of them work hard too; not their fault.

3) Almost everyone is profoundly tied into thier economic class by circumstances of birth - we do not exist in an ideal, American dream, Ayn Rand-accomodating world in which the most meriticious people reap the most benefits. Because of the cost of our education system, the necessity of connections, the quality disparity among public schools and even parents' views toward education, people of otherwise equal talent routinely end up either higher or lower economically and socially than they should. And it's only widening as the middle-class is pushed back; America (and most of the West) is a less economically mobile society than ever.

4) Those in the top position (let's say the "1 percent") don't just make more money than others. They make more money than others in larger amounts than ever. We're talking about the points at which their accumulated wealth could never reasonably be spent. It's like if, in terms of GPAs, you only need a 4.0. We're talking about people making 11.0s.

5) This would be fine if the money actually trickled down into new development. With a global economy, outsourcing, stocks, bonuses, money to be made from collecting on loans, etc. (all recently increased as in the last thirty or so years) that isn't always true.

6) The Occupy movement was sloppy, unorganized, and many of its members routinely engaged in exactly the type of anti-Capitalistic, entitled schlock Snorunt Conservationist was talking about. Totally true. Whatever it started out as, it did become an embarassment to its basic messages.

7) It still brought attention to points 3), 4) and 5) and prompted continuing public discourse on these otherwise largely invisible problems. And that's better nothing.

see, all of this is totally reasonable and i can even agree that occupy turned into a bunch of entitled, embarrassing drivel (though it's mostly gone back to its basics recently, on account of most of the embarrassing members abandoning it)

but then i actually expect reasoned arguments from your posts. you are misc's 1% and SC et al. are its occupy movement's worst excesses

I wouldn't dislike them for being successful or being lucky enough to be related to someone successful.
I would only dislike a wealthy person if they boasted about their wealth...your financial business isn't something to go bragging or whining about.